simonpj at microsoft.com
Thu Oct 10 08:32:23 EDT 2002
| Am I right in thinking that you are proposing that we revert to
| writing Haskell finalizers but that Hugs and NHC programmers would
| have to avoid writing finalizers which manipulate Haskell state while
| GHC would use MVars to protect that state?
Yes, that's right. It is often the case that there *is* no shared state
so a Haskell finalizer is fine. But if there is, then there has to be
mechanism for atomic operations. C is one such mechanism.
But there's something I'm puzzled about. Hugs does support
non-pre-emptive concurrency, right? (Where can I find a description of
it.) So would it not be easy to implement (non-pre-emptive) MVars? And
if they existed, everything would be fine, right? We could just use
Haskell finalizers as we all want. Or am I missing something.
(I'm assuming that the starting point for the entire discussion is
whether finalizers are written in Haskell or C. Please let me know if I
More information about the FFI